addressing the Speaker, said he had seen the hon. Member for North Monaghan remove a name card from a seat which had been appropriated for another Member before prayers. He should not have called attention to the matter, only he heard the hon. Member for North Monaghan say to the hon. Member as he was passing—

Order, order! These little private matters are not in order The hon. Member has asked me about a point of practice in the House. The practice is that in order to keep a seat the hon. Member himself must be present at prayers. That is quite clear. If the hon. Member has not been present at prayers the card is not effective.

This is the most shameful incident that any Irish Member has ever introduced.

Allow me to say that I would be the last person to take any advantage of a rule that was not a right one, and if I did err I am very sorry indeed for it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any attempt has been made on the part of His Majesty's Government to refer the questions in dispute between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Venezuela to arbitration; and whether any such offer has been refused by the Government of Venezuela.

The answer to both the honourable Member's Questions is in the negative.

I beg to ask the postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Messrs. Shelford and Son, stated in the Colonial Office List to be the Consulting Engineers for Railways employed by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, are also contractors for the construction of West African railways; and will he state what complaints have been received from the Governor of Lagos or other Colonial officials as to the cost and character of the work and supplies required for railway undertakings now in progress in West Africa.

The West African railways are being constructed departmentally, and not by contract. Messrs. Shelford and Son are the Consulting Engineers, and are not in any sense contractors for the work. No complaints of the kind referred to have been received.

Are they constructing the line?

I do not know what meaning the hon. Member attaches to the word "constructing."

There is a wide difference between the engineer and the person who is constructing the line.

I have said that they are the Consulting Engineers.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if the treaty concluded between the Niger Company and the Sultan of Sokoto specifically stated that the treaty was granted to the Niger Company and to its assigns; and if, in view of the interest taken in the matter by Lancashire and other industrial centres trading with West Africa, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the treaty, and also the despatches showing the efforts which have been made to induce the Sultan of Sokoto to recognise the Crown as transferees of the treaty and treaty rights, and the efforts to establish friendly relations generally; and whether he will give instructions that friendly assurances shall be at once conveyed to the Sultan of Sokoto and to the otherwise, that the contemplated military preparations and movements of troops are merely of the nature of police protection for the British and French Delimitation Commissioners, and that nothing of a hostile or unfriendly nature to Sokoto or Kano are intended thereby.

had on the Paper the following Question: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies. whether, in the treaties of 1885, 1890, and 1894, between the Emirs of Sokoto and the Niger Company, the Company was recognised as receiving its powers from and as representing the Crown; and if he will explain the circumstances under which it is alleged that Sokoto declined to recognise the transfer of the powers of the Company to the Imperial Government, and will lay upon the Table a copy of any communications which passed at the time the transfer took place, and, whether every endeavour will be made in connection with the Anglo-French boundary delimitation to prevent the suspicion of the Mohammedan Emirs being excited by the composition of the armed escort.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the two questions together. By the treaty of the 25th of June, 1894, the Sultan of Sokoto expressly recognised the Royal Niger Company as receiving its powers from and representing the Queen of Great Britain. Two of the three treaties have been published in Hertslet's "Map of Africa by Treaty." The treaty of 1894 has not been printed there, but is in the same terms mutatis mutandis as the treaty with Gandu of the same year. The word "assigns" is not used in any of the treaties, but the treaty of 1885 was made with the Company "or other with whom they may arrange." Sir F. Lugard's messenger to the Sultan, informing him of the transfer was treated with indignity, and to messages sent subsequently the Sultan has returned a defiant reply. The actual text of the communications which have passed between the High Commissioner and the Sultan is not in the possession of His Majesty's Government, and no Papers on the subject can usefully be laid before the House at present, but Sir F. Lugard's annual Report for the last year, in which his relations with Sokoto and Kano are referred to, will shortly be published. Sir F. Lugard's policy has always been to cultivate friendly relations with the Sultans, if possible, and he has no doubt done all in his power to avert any suspicions which might be excited by the military arrangements necessary for the protection of the Boundary Commissioners.

May I ask whether any new provision have been introduced which would in any way account for the remarkable change that seems to have occurred in the relations between the Emir and the Government?

I think not. I had, however, better ask for notice of any additional Questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that Dr. Dupré, the Home Office chemist, stated in a speech at Sutton that there shall be no legislation raising the flash point of petroleum from 73°Abel close test; whether Dr. Dupré has been called on for any explanation of this speech, and what has been the result.

The speech to which, as I understand, the hon. Member refers, consisted of remarks delivered at least five years ago by Dr. Dupre in the course of discussion at a meeting of the Sutton Scientific and Literary Society. The words in the Question do not accurately represent what was said, as far as can be recollected. Dr. Dupres remarks were known in the Home Office at the time, and I find nothing which I feel called upon to ask him to explain.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, in the course of next Session, a measure extending the duration of or rendering permanent the provisions of the Vaccination Act, 1898, which will otherwise expire on the 1st day of January 1904.

Yes, it will be necessary to deal with this matter next Session.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state on what grounds English officials have been appointed to the recent vacancies for postmasterships in Ireland; why have Irish officers of long service been passed over; and whether he will take steps to secure that promotions to Irish post offices will be made from the ranks of the Irish officials.

Vacancies in postmasterships are habitually advertised in the Post Office Circular and are open to all qualified applicants irrespective of their place of residence at the time. In filling recent vacancies in Ireland I have chosen the senior candidate who appeared to me in all respects qualified. And I am satisfied that this is the only method of selection which is fair to the large staff' employed by the Post Office. Exactly the same rules are followed in filling vacancies in England or Scotland.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the list of these appointments in the Tory Erening Mail?

How is it that the selections for these offices are all Englishmen?

They are not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was received a complaint than on the 28th ultimo the officer of the Blacksod Bay coastguard station lent the service rifles to a civilian for sporting purposes; that these rifles were fired so as to interfere with the sporting rights of Mr. Thomas Sweeney; and what action has been taken in this matter.

The infringement of Mr. Sweeney's sporting rights consisted in this, that the shot from the service rifle was fired at long range, and before he himself could fire. It was wrong, no doubt, for the officer of the coastguard to use the rifle for sporting purposes. But the temptation was great and the wrong was unintentional, and no further notice of the matter has been taken beyond warning him not to do it again.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any appointments have yet been made to the vacant dispensary appointments in the counties of Louth, Waterford, and Wexford, for which the branches of the Medical Association have decided that no candidates will apply unless the salaries are fixed at £200 a year: and what steps have the Local Government Board taken in the matter.

There is no vacancy in the County Wexford. In Louth an election to fill the one vacancy in that county is fixed to take place on Tuesday next. In Waterford the question of re-arranging the boundaries of the vacant district is still under the consideration of the Guardians.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any expert official from the Land Commission Department will be directed to attend and assist with official statistics the conference between the representatives of landlords and tenants promoted by the committee of landlords presided over by the Earl of Dunraven.

The official statistics issued from time to time by the Land Commission have been published in the form of annual reports and returns, which have been presented to Parliament. The Commissioners, I have no doubt, would be quite willing to supply, on application, copies of such documents to the conference, but beyond this no directions could be given.

As this is going to be the greatest meeting of the century, they ought to have the best expert advice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to representations from the inhabitants of Rathmullan, county Donegal, requesting a grant out of the moneys voted by the Marine Works Act for the extension of the existing pier at Rathmullan; and whether, seeing that the proposed extension of the pier has been recommended by the officers of His Majesty's ships anchored off Rathmullan, he will comply with this request.

I am not yet in a position to make any pronouncement upon the question of the allocation of the moneys provided by this Act.

When may we expect an announcement?

I shall be going into the matter in Ireland in January.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Local Government Board (Ireland) wrote to the Armagh Board of Guardians with reference to the appointment of a Roman

The facts are correctly stated. The matter is at present engaging the attention of the Local Government Board.

I think it would obviously be for the convenience of the House if the Leader would state generally the line which the Government proposes to pursue in regard to those Amendments, which are not more drafting ones but which raise serious points.

, on a point of order with reference to certain underlined words within brackets and the statement in regard thereto that '' it was proposed that those words should be omitted by the Commons," asked by whose order the words were inserted. He submitted that if it was by order of the House of Lords it was a gross breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. It struck him as a piece of dictation by the House of Lords to the House of Commons. He assumed that the words were not put in by the order of the Speaker, and certainly they could not have been inserted on the order of the Prime Minister.

I think I can give the hon. Member the information he desires. As he is aware, when the Lords insert an Amendment which contains a blank, it has been the practice to make a motion calling attention to that blank and suggesting that it should be filled in by the House of Commons. What has been done in this case is intended to be analogous to that practice. I rather agree, however, that the phrase quoted by the hon. Member is an unfortunate phrase taken in connection with the present Bill. The words have been inserted without any interference by the Chair or by the Clerk at the Table, but in accordance with a general arrangement made a long time ago between the officers of the House of Lords and the Public Bill Office and frequently acted upon, with a view to conveying to the Commons the nature of the proposal or suggestion. As to whether it is a convenient practice or not, I believe that as a general rule the use of some such notice is convenient, but it occurs to me that, in relation to a highly contentious measure like the Education Bill, the words used ought not to assume beforehand what the action of the House of Commons will be. Whether some other form of words which avoids that suggestion, while at the same time pointing out the nature of the proposal, cannot be devised for use in the future, is a question which deserves to be considered. The Paper in question is printed by order of this House, and not of the House of Lords.

Is not the Prime Minister going to rise?

Of course I will rise, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I really have very little to say. I have no general statement to make with regard to the Lords Amendments. With two or three exceptions, I believe they are purely drafting Amendments, which neither require, nor indeed call for, discussion, and with regard to Amendments not of that character the only result of a general statement would be that we should have a desultory, imperfect, and fruitless discussion before we carne to the actual debate which is to determine the course we shall pursue. Under these circumstances, I venture respectfully to suggest to the House that probably the most convenient course would be to at once enter on the discussion of the Amendments without any preliminary debate.

said that several of the Amendments—probably seven or eight—were highly contentious; and in the case of a Bill so contentious it would have been convenient, as well as in accordance with custom, if the right hon. Gentleman had made general statement, such as they had often listened to, as to the views of the Government. As that statement had not been made, he proposed to move that the Lords Amendments be considered this day three months. That Motion could only be made in the case of a Bill to which those who made it were fiercely hostile, as if carried it meant the rejection of he Bill. Objectionable as the Bill had been before, the seven or eight contentious Amendments inserted by the Lords worsened it from the point of view of the Opposition. In no point had their views been met. He did not propose to discuss them at length, but he would refer to one or two. There was one to which, no doubt, great importance was attached by other hon. Members, but as he did not share their views on it, he would leave them to raise it—he meant the Amendment in regard to the Cowper Temple Clause. Another of these Amendments, to which very little attention had been paid in the other House, included diocesan boards in the bodies to be represented on the education committees. They had had considerable experience of these Boards, and he had called down on himself strong condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, and the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire, who spoke with great knowledge of Church feeling, because in Committee on the Bill he had associated jobbery with these Boards. He spoke of facts within his own knowledge and affecting his own constituency. These associations of voluntary schools, now for the first time brought in, were bodies which had not dispensed the funds given by Parliament to poor voluntary schools in a way which have them the right to representation on these committees; and, in passing, he might say they were already arranging to secure that representation, for in some districts where the opposition was likely to be most strong. time had been taken by the forelock to such an extraordinary extent that the committee had been virtually appointed under schemes which it was proposed to bring into which hon. Members attached great importance was that which excluded elementary teachers from the committees. That was an Amendment of substance, and one which would have to be fought. Higher teachers were to be entitled to be placed on these committees, and why should such a special stigma be placed on elementary teachers as to say that they were not also fit person to be appointed. The only other Amendments to which he would refer were those which more or less concerned the privileges of the House. those which touched rates and taxes. They divided themselves into two groups, There was the one which had been dealt with under a most unfortunate precedent—objected to at the time by the Irish Members on constitutional grounds—by putting words into the Bill which made nonsense of it, in order to avoid what would otherwise be an interference with the privileges of the House of Commons. With that they would have to deal when this particular Amendment was reached. Then there was the insertion, on two occasions, of the words "or rent." These Amendment were obnoxious, because they were Government Amendments, of the necessity for which the Government thought they ought to put in. His right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen thought there was substance in it, and when the Government Amendment came up it was ruled out of order on the ground that it affected the burdens of the people, and ought to have been the subject of preliminary debate. Yet it had been put in another place and brought down to the House of Commons. It was, he thought, a direct violation of the privileges of the House. If it should be put to them that the right hon. Gentleman the member for South Aberdeen was wrong in his view, and that it was not a matter of substance, but merely a verbal alteration, carrying out the views of the House, what was the position of the Government? It ought to have taken the natural and constitutional course, and have recommitted the Bill in respect of these two Amendments only. It could not have taken much time or involved any lengthened debate, for no constitutional question could have arisen, and there would have been no breach of the privileges of the House. Therefore the Government, even if their contention in no better position, that they should have recommitted the Bill.

said he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have risen to make a statement on these Amendments. They were not without a precedent in the matter, and a very recent precedent in the case of the Parish Councils Bill. That Bill was a good deal altered in the House of Lords, and when it came back to the House of Commons, the Prime the moment so important did he deem the matter—the Minister in charge of the Bill, made an elaborate statement as to the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Lords' Amendments. Even if there had been no precedent, it was obvious that it would conduce to the proper discussion of these Amendments if the right hon. Gentleman made such a statement. The Amendments came before the House that morning; they had only had an hour or two to look at them: they referred to the pages and lines of a Bill which many of them had not in their hands, and even with it they had to struggle with them as best they might. They knew that some were more important than others, but it would have facilitated business very much if the right lion. Gentleman had taken the business-like and more courteous course he had suggested, and explained to the House shortly what the Government proposed to do. Such a statement need not have given rise to any discursive discussion, but it would have greatly facilitated the progress of business, and have redounded to the advantage of the Government.

said the right hon. Gentleman had made two accusations against him. One was that he was lacking in business capacity, and the other was that he was lacking in courtesy. The first did not move him much. As regarded the second, he was sure the right hon. Baronet, whatever other charges he might have desired to make, did not mean to charge him with discourtesy. He did not think there was really any call for a general reply on the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, word The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a precedent, but he did not know, for he had not had an opportunity to refresh his memory on the point, what were the reasons which induced Mr. Gladstone to make a general statement of policy with regard to the Lords Amendments to the Parish Councils Hill. Upon this occasion there was no need for such a general statement. The great majority of the Amendments were drafting Amendments, and conduced merely to clearness. He hoped that they would be accepted without any lengthy discussion. He could not make out eight Amendments of substance, and he thought the right hon. Baronet, in his enumeration of the questions of substance, had somewhat exaggerated the number. But he must repeat that he had no general statement to make, as their views could only be stated with advantage as the Amendments came up for discussion. He could only repeat the advice he gave a few moments ago, that it would really conduce to the discussion of these Amendments if they brought this general debate to a conclusion, and proceeded at once to the discussion of the Amendments one by one.

did not think the Prime Minister had facilitated the discussion by declining to give a general indication of his policy. This was an exceptional state of things, and he did not believe the Lords Amendments to a first-class Bill had ever been taken on the very day those Amendments were printed. Such a thing could not be done in the case of a Private Bill. It could not be done by the Rules of the House in the case of a Private Bill. Of course in a case of urgency the House could suspend its Standing Orders, but, then, this was not a case of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman was in a great hurry to give this Bill as a Christmas-box to the clergy.

They do not seem very thankful for it.

said he expected the right hon. Gentleman to say that. If the clergy could not stand by a bargain, it was not to be expected they would be thankful for a gift. Looking at the Amendments as they were presented on the Paper, it was impossible to discover what they meant. It was necessary to go carefully through the Bill in order to fit them in and to consider their bearing on other Clauses. Although some of them knew every line of the Bill by heart—as well as they did their Catechism— it still needed very careful examination to know what the Amendments meant. He candidly confessed that, though he had followed the proceedings from day to day, he had not the remotest notion what many of the Amendments were. It was only on the previous day he asked for a printed copy of the Amendments. The Prime Minister by his reply showed that he knew what was coming. Although it was not until ho learned that the Lords had amended the Bill on the Third Reading that he understood what the right hon. Gentleman mean when he suggested that there were possibilities. The Prime Minister, he supposed, had this in his mind.

Assuming the hon. Member to refer to what took place in the House of Lords yesterday, I can assure him I had not that in my mind.

said he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, of course. But the fact remained that thay got a copy of the Amendments only that morning, and had not had time to consider them. They were really entitled to ask for a couple of days for that purpose. He thought that no Leader of the House could refuse so reasonable a request if made by the Opposition. But they were not pressing for that. They asked simply for a general idea as to what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do concerning the contentious Amendments. Fifty or sixty Amendments had been made by the House of Lords. He would, not say they were all contentious, but there were possibilities of contention in them. Surely it would be well for the Government to state their intentions with regard to, at any rate, three or four of those Amendments. First, what was the right of entry into secondary schools? That was an important Amendment. But the one they all had in mind was the "Manchester Amendment," the joint production of the Duke of Norfolk, representing the, Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Manchester, representing the Anglican Church. In the House of Lords the Government resisted that Amendment, and wore defeated. Were they going to accept the humiliating defeat at the hands of the Bishops and the Catholic Church, or were they going to stand up to the clergy? The Amendment, as worded, was pure nonsense; it meant nothing, and was intended to mean nothing. The House of Lords was attempting to dictate to the House of Commons by saying: "We do not intend the Amendment to moan anything; our orders are that, you should omit the last two lines." He understood that these words were really inserted, not by the Lord Chancellor or the Bishops, or the Duke of Norfolk, but by the Clerks. Was the Prime Minister, with the honour of the House of Commons in his custody, going to advise the House to bow to the dictation of the Clerks of the House of Lords? The Government, first of all, declared that this was a bad Amendment, and, through their representative in the House of Lords, said they could not accept it, as it was a departure from the bargain. Was the Prime Minister now going to say they would accept it? He was afraid he was, and that this was the reason of his silences. Anyhow, it was a good lesson for the Prime Minister and for every Statesman in the future not to go buccaneering with a crew of Bishops. The House was entitled to ask what the view of the Government was with regard to this particular loot? Were the Bishops to be allowed to stick to it, or wits the Prime Minister going to keep to the bargain? He was aware that the right hon, Gentleman repudiated the idea of a bargain. Did he mean to say that the leaders of the Church were not cognisant of the terms of the Bill before its introduction in the House of Commons? There was little doubt that they knew what the general outlines of the measure were, and assented to them. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was a bargain, but a hard bargain, and now the Government, having carried out its part of the bargain, and a little more, in the House of Commons, the Bishops said, "As that part of the bargain is perfectly safe, we will try to squeeze a little more." All he could say was that the ideas of commercial honour on the Episcopal Bench were not as high as those of the Stock Exchange. There was not a commercial body in the country, however hard the bargain might be from its point of view, that would dream of attempting such a course.

I think my hon. friend is entirely justified in his demand that the Government should tell us at once whether they mean to take in the House of Commons the same course with regard to these matters as was taken by their representative in the House of Lords. The statement of the case by the Government in the House of Lords was extremely distinct, especially with reference to the Amendment dealing with the repairs. That statement, as made by the official agent of the Government in charge of the Bill, was:—

" The general intention of the Bill was that the managers should not only provide the schools, but keep them in suitable condition. In the other place, this view was sustained by a majority far beyond their ordinary Parliamentary majority. Any attempt to meet cases of exceptional hardship would go very far beyond these cases, and would disturb to a serious degree the general arrangement of the Bill. The Government had proposed that the managers should make themselves responsible, not only for structural, but also for the internal repairs of the school—."

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman began by saying he would read from a speech made in the House of Lords. I must remind him that it is not in order to quote from recent debates in that ouse. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state what he understands to be the views of the Government as expressed in the House of Lords, without quoting the speeches.

I am sure you will concede, Sir, that, at all events upon the Lords Amendments, we are entitled to state, in a general way, how those Amendments arose, and what the view of the Government in reference to them was in the House of Lords. What I desire to state is that the Government refused to accept the Amendment, because it was entirely inconsistent with the general arrangement and intention of the Bill. Their view was that these things were part of the arrangement as to the financial relations between the local authority and the managers, and they deprecated as strongly as they could any provision by which that arrangement would be modified in favour of either the one party or the other. We are entitled to ask whether that is to be the view of the Government in the House of Commons? It is perfectly clear that the Amendment carried in the House of Lords is an entire departure from the financial arrangements as made by the House of Commons. I must say that I regard with extreme regret the method which has been adopted occasionally in the past to evade the privileges of this House, and to allow the House of Lords to deal with financial matters which have been disposed of by the House of Commons. It is not as if this was, a financial matter which had accidentally escaped observation, or had passed through in the hurry and scurry in which the financial provisions of the Bill were dealt with during the last days of the discussion in this House. The matter was fully and carefully considered, and it was determined by an overwhelming majority. It is now brought down to us from the House of Lords with this extraordinary paragraph. If this course is to be pursued and extended in matters of such tremendous consequence, the control of the House of Commons over the finances of this country will be practically destroyed. Up to this time the rule has been, with very rare exceptions, that when there has been a breach of privilege it has, been dealt with by Mr. Speaker. If it had come down to the House of Commons without this paragraph in brackets, you, Mr. Speaker, would have declared that it was a breach of privilege of this House, in your official capacity, and you would have done this just as you would have prevented any breach of the Standing Orders of this House. Wherever Mr. Speaker has announced to the House that he regards an Amendment as a breach of the privilege of this House, that Amendment has been so regarded. It was so in the case of the Education Bill of 1891, when your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, upon the appeal of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, declared that a very indirect Amendment was a breach of the privileges of this House. Thereupon, Mr. Goschen, who was then in charge of the House, consented to the rejection of that Amendment as such. And now, Sir, what is the position we are placed in by this Amendment? It is a nonsensical Amendment. Is the educational legislation of this country to be based upon nonsensical Amendments of this kind sent down from the. House of Lords in a most unconstitutional form as regards the control of the finances of this country? We know perfectly well if a nonsensical Amendment is proposed in this House, you, Mr. Speaker, would refuse to allow it to be put; but to send down a nonsensical Amendment from the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying through a collusive arrangement with the Government, and to say that the House of Commons shall carry out the directions of the House of Lords, is a most dangerous precedent to establish, and ought not to be encouraged. What was the position? Are the Government, or are they not, going to take up this nonsensical Amendment from the House of Lords and deal with it as a method of superseding the proceedings of the House of Commons? I venture to say, and I believe I am right, that if this Amendment had been made in the House of Commons, it could only have been made in Committee of this House, and that would have been a necessary condition. What takes place? You get rid of the security of finance by a Committee of this House, and you substitute for that Committee this nonsensical Amendment of the House of Lords. That is the protection given to the finance of this country under the reactionary policy to which we are beginning, I am afraid, to be too much attached. Therefore, I think we are entitled, before we go into these considerations, to hear from the Government what is their contention with regard to these matters. This is admitted to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. This proposal has been declared in the House of Lords to be a breach of the intentions of the Government under this Bill, and it is a breach of the whole financial arrangements made in this measure, which will have the effect of throwing upon the public authority charges which were always intended to be borne by the private subscribers. I desire to know whether these subscribers are to be called upon to fulfil that obligation, or whether the Government are going to depart from the whole of their declarations in this House upon this question? Having been defeated upon this question in the House of Lords, the Government are going to call upon the House Commons to reverse the decision arrived at by a great majority. Are the Government going to encourage such proceedings as those contemplated in this Amendment to defeat the control of the finances of this country by the House of Commons?

said the Lords Amendments were either of first-class and real importance, or else they were merely of a drafting character. The latter did not affect the Hill much, but the former were concessions on the part of the Government to the demands of the Bishops, and in regard to those Amendments the only dignified reply was to say that this House declined to consider them altogether. Just complaints had

moved that this Amendment be accepted. The training of teachers was in the definition Clause as part of the duties of the education anthority. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir William Auson.)

said he quite agreed that the definition Clause explained what might be done under the term "secondary education." At the same time, after two days debate, the House of Commons thought it desirable that these words should be inserted off the face of the Bill in order that this matter, which was considered of firstclass importance, should not escape the attention of any Town Council, or County Council. There was no reason for the Government assention to the leaving out of the words. He did not think there was any matter of more importance, in regard to the educational needs of the country, than increased facilties for the training of teachers.

hoped the Government would disagree with this Amendment. In substance there was not much in it either one way or the other. While it was true that this was in the definition Clause, the feeling, when Clause 2 was debated was that by puttiong these words on the face of the Bill, local authorities would see that this was one of the things they had to consider. Up to the present the local authourities had made no provision at all for the training of teachers, and if they found these words there they would be stimulated to make provision, though they might not otherwise do so. The words if retained could not possibly do any harm, and they might do some good.

thought it was a matter worth consideration whether these specific words should be omitted. This was a matter of great importance House of Lords attached so much importance to voluntary associations that they did not consider they were covered by the words "other bodies," and they insisted upon specific reference being made to voluntary associations. But they did not care to specify the training of teachers. The House of Commons might be excused if they attached more importance to the training of teachers than to voluntary associations. He believed that County Councils would not be disposed of themselves to go to any great expense under Part II, of the disposition would be to koop down the pates. Therefore it was most important that the House should emphasise that matter and keep these words in.

hoped the House would proceed to the more important matter awaiting discussion. This matter was covered by the definition Clause, and the words in Clause 2 were weakening words as they stood. It was part and parcel of the duties of the local authority to provide for the training of teachers.

said they weere told a minute or two ago that there were eight Amendments of importance to the Opposition. The Government were invited to state their views on those Amendments, but the House had not been told what they were. The hon. Member for the Morley Division said that all the rest were drafting Amendments, and that it did not matter whether they were inserted or reiected.

I congratulate the hon. And learned Member for North Louth on his alliance with the Government.

The Catholics are not ashamed of that, anyhow.

I am sure the Government are. This is not a Clause for the training of Irish Members, but for the training of teachers. The